<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Steven Garcia</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:webwhammy@gmail.com">webwhammy@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Package Licensing<br>To: Tom spot Callaway <<a href="mailto:tcallawa@redhat.com">tcallawa@redhat.com</a>><br><br><br>Thank you, for your reply.<br>
<br>I apologize for misinterpreting the packaging guidelines for bundled libraries. For some reason when I was reading the guidelines, I was thinking in the context of compiled shared or static libraries as is so often the case. I failed to remember that in this context the definition of the term "library", includes interpreted third party source code such as JavaScript, PHP and others.<br>
<br>There are two places where I should have been able to answer my own questions:<br><a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Split_up_the_program" target="_blank">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Split_up_the_program</a><br>
<a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries" target="_blank">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries</a><br><br>Again, I'm sorry for missing this. Please consider adding to the packaging guidelines a note similar to, "In this RPM packaging context, the definition of the term 'library' includes: compiled third party source code resulting in shared or static linkable files, interpreted third party source code such as JavaScript, PHP and others." Also, consider adding a note similar to, "If the license field of your RPM Spec file contains two or more licenses, be sure to read <a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries" target="_blank">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries</a> to ensure you're meeting the packaging guidelines."<br>
<br>I merely mention these suggestions in an effort to reciprocate the help you have given me in better understanding the packaging process.<br><br>I now realize the serious library flaws in my packaging. I'm going to attempt individual packaging of the third party libraries.<br>
<br>Thank you for your time and consideration.<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tcallawa@redhat.com" target="_blank">tcallawa@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div>On 11/14/2010 11:30 PM, Steven Garcia wrote:<br>
> The following lists a name, license and brief for each third-party<br>
> source file group/library:<br>
<br>
</div>I feel that you really should consider packaging (or using any already<br>
packaged) versions of these third party components, as opposed to<br>
bundling copies within your package.<br>
<br>
Not only would it resolve your licensing complexity, it would make it<br>
much more likely that your package would be permitted into Fedora<br>
without needing an exception, see:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries" target="_blank">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries</a><br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
~spot<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></div><br>